Standing Committee A

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Work and Families Bill

Clause 8 - Entitlement to additional statutory

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Thank you, Mr. Forth. It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair. I look forward to your keeping us in order this evening. I suspect that it is far better for you to be in the Chair than on the Opposition Benches.
Clause 8 inserts a new section 171ZEC in part 12ZA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which makes further provision about a person's entitlement to additional statutory paternity pay whether in relation to birth or adoption. Subsections (1) and (2) provide that the employee needs to give notice in writing if required by the employer of the date from which he expects liability for payment of additional statutory paternity pay to commence and the date on which he expects it to end. The time by which this notice must be given will be set out in the regulations and is something that we will be consulting on further.

Mark Prisk: Would the Minister tell the Committee when he expects those draft regulations to come forward? He will know that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it quite clear that if it was within his power, he would try to make sure that we were told.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) missed the admonishment I received this morning. I pointed out that the Secretary of State is an optimistic and hard taskmaster in getting Ministers to deal with Bills going through Committee. His was an aspiration that I will not be able to meet. I explained to the Committee the process of how the draft regulations will be developed following full consultation with stakeholders, including small businesses, as I was asked to include this morning. I hope that we covered that point. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will understand the full explanation that I gave to the Committee this morning.
Initial thoughts are that the notice period will be two months, as this will follow changes that are being made to the notice period required in the case of a mother on maternity leave returning to work early, which will now be two months. To keep matters as straightforward as possible, the intention is to try to keep notification periods the same so that the father is required to notify his employer of his intention to take  leave at the same time as the mother is required to notify her employer of her return to work. 
Subsection (3) provides power for the Secretary of State to deal with various other matters by regulations. These include evidence of entitlement and the circumstances in which employment is to be treated as continuous for the purposes of qualifying for additional statutory paternity pay, including length of service and the amount of earnings. This will ensure that the scheme is robust and that there are clear requirements for both employer and employee. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Liability to make payments of additional statutory paternity pay

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 9, page 8, line 9, leave out from 'of' to end of line 22 and insert
'the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Administration of statutory leave payments—
'The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing that any employer employing fewer than 50 persons may transfer to the Secretary of State responsibility for the administration of payments to that person's employees of— 
(a) statutory maternity pay, 
(b) adoption pay, 
(c) additional statutory paternity pay, and 
(d) ordinary paternity pay.'. 
New clause 6—Payment of statutory maternity pay— 
'An employer may opt to hand payment of statutory maternity pay back to her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.'. 
New clause 7—Liability to make payments of statutory maternity pay— 
'(1) The liability to make payments of statutory maternity pay is a liability of the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. 
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify circumstances in which liability for the payment of statutory maternity pay is to be a liability of any person of whom the person entitled to the payments has been an employee as defined by relevant legislation.'.

Eleanor Laing: May I say on behalf of the Opposition what a pleasure it is to welcome you, Mr. Forth, to the Chair this afternoon?
Amendment No. 22 is a probing amendment to give the Committee a chance to consider the role of the commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in this process. At present, clause 9 suggests that liability to make payments of additional statutory paternity pay under section 171ZEA or 171ZEB should be liability of the employer. We suggest that instead it should be a liability of the commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Additional paternity pay will be paid at the statutory flat rate. Therefore, it would be simpler for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to deal with the payments on a similar basis to that of maternity allowance rather than statutory maternity pay with its earnings-related  element. It was argued that because of that earnings-related element, the Revenue and Customs should not deal with it, but this is not the same as statutory maternity pay. It is additional paternity pay, and as it is at a flat rate, the administration should be simpler. I therefore argue that Revenue and Customs should take responsibility for statutory paternity pay rather than that additional burden being placed on employers. 
In our debates on this and other Bills in the last few weeks, the Minister responsible for women and equality has heard me say many times that we should not put too great a burden on small businesses. It is bad enough to require the administration of the Government's tax collection and benefit payments by large employers, which have human resources departments to deal with that sort of thing, but much is now being asked of small businesses, which are not set up to deal with the complications of maternity and paternity pay and allowances and, as I said in a debate on an earlier clause, the tax credit scheme. 
The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford that the difference in cost between the public sector—the Government or Government agencies—administering a scheme and small businesses doing so was enormous. It is about £75 million compared with £3 million. How can it cost the Government £75 million per annum, but the estimated cost is only £3 million when small businesses carry out the same administrative service for their employees? The figures are not even in the same ball park, but the burdens being put on small businesses are enormous. 
The amendment proposes that instead of requiring much more administrative help for the public purse from small businesses, the commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs should provide it on behalf of the Government. The Minister will explain why the Government would prefer it the other way round, but it is a matter that must be probed further. 
Amendment No. 22 is to clause 9, but the principle applies to several parts of the Bill. Why should small businesses do the Government's work in collecting taxes and paying benefits? If they do it, why does it cost 5 per cent. of what it would cost the Government to do the same thing?

Alan Reid: It is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth. I have observed your work in the House in what could be described as your poacher role, so I look forward with pleasure and interest to seeing you in the gamekeeper role.
I wish to speak in favour of new clause 2, which would transfer responsibility for the administration of payments for statutory maternity pay, adoption pay, additional statutory paternity pay and ordinary paternity pay from a person's employer to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. 
I welcome the Bill, which is good not only for employees but for employers. However, as with many of the good things in life, there is a downside, namely the extra burden of administration that the Bill will  place on employers, especially small businesses. We touched on that matter earlier, and Ministers conceded that a greater burden falls on small employers who are coming across new working procedures for the first time. A big employer will have large human resources and payroll departments that can easily deal with automated processes. A small employer will be faced with working out all the procedures the first time that someone claims additional paternity pay. 
The procedures are complicated, and they will become more so with the introduction of additional paternity pay because the mother and father may work for different employers, and that will introduce an extra level of complexity. Like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), I was amazed to hear the Minister's earlier claim that there was a huge difference between the cost of the Government running that part of the payroll, and that of small employers. One would have thought that it would be much cheaper for the Government because they would benefit from economies of scale. 
New clause 2 states that companies with fewer than 50 employees should be given the choice of running that part of the payroll or of transferring it to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which would be able to run it more easily. That could represent a quid pro quo whereby the Government issue extra regulations to which employers must comply, but they agree to take on that part of employers' administration.

Peter Bone: Perhaps I should start by referring hon. Members to my declaration on the Register of Members' Interests as a small business person, at least in the past tense. I understand the need to administer these arrangements, but I do not understand the need for the burden to fall on small business people.
I can remember my time in small business, when Government regulation seemed to take up more time than the running of the business. If the new clause is rejected, will the Minister consider the American view, whereby small businesses are asked to implement regulations, but make a payment that is equal to the amount of energy and time that that takes up? I cannot believe that there is such a huge gap between the Government's cost, and that of small businesses. I suggest that the Government cost has been very accurately worked out, but, when working out the small business cost, they have disallowed time and energy, and worked it out on a totally different basis. If the cost will be £75 million, I suggest that that, as far as it relates to small businesses, is given back.

Mark Prisk: I would like very much to underscore the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and other hon. Members. There seems to be an interesting variance on the question of the cost of administration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) highlighted one possible explanation for that, namely that the Government might just have got their figures wrong on the administrative cost of the measures to businesses.
I am concerned about the accuracy of the figures before us. The Minister knows that I have an element  of pedantry in me when it comes to the costing of regulatory impact assessments. I make no apology for that because it is important that we have the ability and intention to scrutinise the smallest detail. To a small business, it is not the smallest detail; it may be the difference between being able to secure its livelihood, and not being able to survive in the current economic climate. I hope that we shall be able to explore in great detail the actual variance of cost and what the basis of that assumption is. 
May I turn to the underlying point that is at the heart of the amendment before us and the new clause that has been referred to? That is the issue of the time involved. It is rare for regulatory impact assessments to reflect the maxim in business that time is money. I appreciate that in politics, that may seem a strange commodity, but it is true. In particular in small businesses, time spent filling in forms is time not spent doing business. Time spent complying with Government is time not spent trying to ensure that the business generates profit—some of which is used to meet the costs of paying employees—and that it is able to grow, and pay the taxes that pay for those of us who work in the public sector. 
My concern is twofold. First, there is the question of productivity. The amendment relates to the principle. We have seen how this country's productivity has declined: it has dropped from fourth in international leagues to 13th. One of my concerns, and the reason why I am happy to speak in support of the amendments, is that I genuinely believe that there is a strong case that, if the principle underlying the amendments were adopted, that would help us to restore our position in the productivity league. 
Secondly, the Bill was introduced by the Secretary of State on Second Reading as being a matter of fairness, whose purpose was to get the balance between work and family life correct. My concern is that the family life of the small business owner is diminished by many of the burdens that we are discussing in this Committee. In particular—I may have mentioned this on Second Reading, but I have no hesitation in referring to it again—the Federation of Small Businesses referred to the fact that the average small business today spends 28 hours per month simply complying with existing Government regulations, never mind what is before us in the clause and the amendments that we are considering today. My concern, and the reason why I am supporting the amendments, is that that figure will be added to. Members of the Committee will realise that 28 hours for every working month for every small business in this country is a large number of hours. Given that this is a Bill about work and families, I am concerned that family time, for either a mum or dad who is running a business, is going to be small.

Eric Forth: Order. Fascinated as I am by the hon. Gentleman's exposition, I was under the impression that this clause is about paternity pay, and that the amendments and new clauses refer to that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could focus, laser-  like, on paternity pay instead of broadening the argument as I fear he might be tempted to do.

Mark Prisk: You are quite right, Mr. Forth. You correct me for referring to mothers. I am solely concerned here with paternity pay, not the maternity aspects. When it comes to new clauses 6 and 2, I hope that the Minister will understand my concern about the administration of statutory maternity pay and statutory paternity pay, which is in new clause 2. I hope that he will reassure us that the time involved in this process will not further diminish the family life of those who own the small businesses about which most of us are concerned.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling her amendments and new clause, as they give us the opportunity to explain the Government's thinking on direct payments and explain how we set about considering whether that was an appropriate method.
The Government are committed to delivering the work and families legislative package in ways that balance the needs of children, families and employers. This morning I tried to explain why that balance is vital. In order to achieve it, we considered a range of issues that affect employees and employers, and we committed at the time of the pre-Budget report of 2004 to consider direct payments as one of the possible ways to ease employers' administration burdens of leave and pay. After careful analysis and consultation, the costs of the direct payment scheme were estimated at up to £75 million in set-up costs and £50 million in annual running costs, which the Government concluded would have been out of all proportion to the benefits, and would represent neither good value for money nor a significant saving for employers. The benefit for employers was estimated to be around £1 million per year, of which only around £400,000 would accrue to small employers.

Eleanor Laing: With all due respect, will the Minister repeat those statistics? I was trying to take them in. He has just told us how much it would cost the public sector and what would be the benefit to small businesses. If he would not mind repeating them we would perhaps be able to grasp the point better.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Indeed, I will repeat them and if it helps the hon. Lady I will put them in writing too to explain our background thinking.
I said that the costs of the direct payment scheme were estimated to be up to £75 million in set-up costs and £50 million in annual running costs and I said that the benefits for employers were estimated to be around £1 million per year, of which only £400,000 would accrue to small employers. So, in order to consider and quantify the potential costs and benefits as fully as possible, as well as the practical implications for employers of a direct payment scheme, HM Revenue and Customs convened an ad hoc advisory group of payroll experts, who were representatives of large and small employers, payroll bureaux and software developers. HMRC's own analysts also carried out extensive analysis. 
I will deal first with the practical implications of a direct payment scheme. It soon became clear during  consultation discussions that because SMP, SPP and so on are wage replacements, subject to the full range of payroll deductions and paid net, direct payment would mean HMRC becoming a temporary ''payroller'' for the SMP and so on of the employees of potentially any employer in the country, taking off the full range of payroll deductions. The employers would not lose all their tasks and responsibilities around these payments. They would remain responsible for making earnings-based contributions like employers' national insurance contributions and employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes, and for completing periodical returns like the employer's annual return. 
For that to work properly for both employers and HMRC there would need to be a potentially complex two-way information exchange, which could impose new burdens on employers. Employers would have to provide HMRC with wide-ranging data, to high standards of accuracy and to tight time limits to enable HMRC to take over the payroll functions associated with those statutory payments and keep them up to date. And employers would still need information from HMRC to fulfil their obligations and take back the payroll at the end of the direct payment period. 
Many people, including payroll experts, did not believe that such complex information exchange could take place without error—and error on a large scale-—affecting employees and their employers. This would create a new role for employers, dealing with the consequences of errors. In short, while at first glance direct payments might appear to relieve employers of an administrative burden, in practice we believe that they would involve for employers a mixture of tasks removed, tasks retained and new tasks. 
HMRC tried to quantify the impact on employers. Building on work done by the HMRC ad hoc consultation group on the direct payment process, HMRC analysis has now estimated that a direct payment scheme would only provide net savings of about £1.1 million to employers, of which only about £400,000 would accrue to small employers. Out of this net benefit employers would still need to deal with the consequences of errors in the information exchange. 
As I said, HMRC costs for implementing direct payment are estimated to be up to £75 million for the set-up and £50 million per annum for the ongoing costs. Full analysis of these figures has been published in a technical note on the HMRC website, the address of which the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), read out to the Committee this morning. Making the scheme optional, so that only those employers who wanted to make use of it could do so, would not have a substantial bearing on HMRC's set-up costs. Fewer employers would be using the scheme, so the employer savings would be reduced. That would represent poor value for money for the taxpayer. 
Clearly there would have been little point in proceeding with a scheme that, although superficially attractive, would have had significant cost implications for the taxpayer without offering any significant  savings for business. I hope that with that explanation hon. Members will understand why direct payment is not the appropriate route. Hon. Members referred to the impact of accumulative effects of employment legislation on small business. I do not wish to step too far outside my remit, but the Bill identifies other areas in which we can support small businesses by making matters easier and simpler.

Peter Bone: Can the Minister deal with my earlier point? If the direct payment system is not acceptable, will he examine the possibility of refunding the employer with the full cost of administering the scheme?

Gerry Sutcliffe: As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are certain benefits for small employers, such as the existing refund to small companies of national insurance contributions at 104.5 per cent. There are opportunities for small businesses to benefit from what the Revenue is trying to achieve. I refer hon. Members to the Government's efforts to support small businesses with the launch of Employer Direct, which is an online service aimed at supporting companies, especially small businesses, in administering employment legislation.
We shall continue to examine these matters because it is not in the Government's or anyone's interest to burden small businesses to the extent that the schemes do not work. That is why I said, in the contextualisation of this matter, that we must strike a balance. We have been asked by a number of organisations that represent employees to go much further on support for working parents. We must balance that with calls from the CBI, which was particularly concerned about the fact that direct payments had not been introduced. We have looked at that matter very seriously but the figures do not stack up and we do not think that it is in the best interests of employers or the Revenue.

Mark Prisk: Without wishing to stretch your patience too far, Mr. Forth, is there any indication that, in the context of that experience, the Minister intends to examine the broader payroll aspects? A brief answer would be helpful.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Brief answers are always dangerous. I am prepared to say that we have asked the CBI and other organisations to examine other measures that may be of assistance to employers, especially small employers, and we will argue the case with the Revenue for reducing that burden.

Eleanor Laing: They say that one can do anything with statistics. I have rarely seen such a stark use of statistics to prove a point. If the Minister had said that the cost-benefit analysis showed that taxpayers may have to pay £5 million a year to the benefit of small businesses of only £1 million a year, I might have nodded and thought that that was fine. However, this is so huge that it becomes difficult to believe. I am not suggesting for a moment that I do not believe what the Minister has said; I have every faith in the figures that he has provided. However, he is correct to say that the CBI is concerned about the issue of direct payments  because it represents employers throughout the country.
The CBI is able to analyse the effect that legislation will have on small, medium and large businesses. I said on Second Reading that my main concern was to make the legislation work. We all wish to see the legislation work, but everyone must have confidence in the system. Our discussions suggest that many businesses will resent having to do more paperwork and administrative work in order to administer this measure. Most people in the United Kingdom are employed by small, not large businesses. What will happen is that small and medium-sized businesses will not employ women of child-bearing age. An employer who has to choose between three men cannot tell which of them is likely to become a father—

Meg Munn: All of them.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister says all of them, and that is indeed the case. The Bill will backfire. The hon. Ladies are all raising their eyebrows; this morning they were giggling when I was speaking, but with the exception of the hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), they have not said anything.
The hon. Ladies have faith in the fact that if something is written in law, it happens. But it does not happen just because it is written down. The law, when it is put into action, must work, and if too many burdens are put on small businesses they will find every way they can not to employ women who might have children. That is what it comes down to. I know that we are also discussing adoption and paternity pay, but the main issue is maternity. I shall give way to the Minister in a moment. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) if, instead of raising her eyebrows, she would like to say something.

Diana Johnson: I have to say something on that point. Are there not more women in the work force now than ever before? How does the hon. Lady explain that away? She seems to imply that because of the legislation introduced since 1997—I assume that that is what she is referring to—employers do not wish to employ women. There are more women in the work force; that is a fact.

Eric Forth: Order. We are getting into a bit of gender confusion. May I ask members of the Committee to concentrate on clause 9 and its amendments?

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Mr. Forth. I am happy to concentrate on clause 9, as you request, before I give way to the Minister. The hon. Lady is an expert in getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Gerry Sutcliffe: To return to the subject of direct payments, the hon. Lady said something earlier about not trusting the figures, or the figures from Customs seeming remarkable. I point out that Customs did those calculations with an ad hoc group from small  and larger businesses. It was said with the cumulative agreement of people round that table that direct payments would be unattractive to employers.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's point. In challenging the enormous gap between the costs and benefits that he said would arise directly from new clause 6, I am not suggesting that I do not believe the Minister's figures. However, the gap between one side and the other is remarkably stark. I will not lose the opportunity to put it on the record that we are concerned about small businesses. Whatever the hon. Ladies on the Labour Back Benches might say, or not say—[Interruption.]

Sadiq Khan: You did not have the pleasure of hearing the rant this morning about interventions, Mr. Forth. The hon. Lady complained in her earlier speech about lack of sleep and I was simply wondering whether that would explain her speech this afternoon.

Eric Forth: Order. Whatever comments may have been made this morning, similar comments will not be acceptable this afternoon. I ask all members of the Committee please to return to clause 9.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Mr. Forth. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) is exceptional in his rudeness in Committee. I am not suffering from lack of sleep. I made the point that children sometimes stay up all night, so flexibility in employment is extremely important, as many members of the Committee understand, and flexibility in employment practices is precisely the matter under consideration in the Bill.
However, to return precisely—as you rightly say we should, Mr. Forth—to clause 9 and new clauses 6 and 7, I accept the Minister's figures, but I am still concerned about the burden on small businesses. If it would cost such an enormous amount to administer the schemes in the public sector, it is hard to believe that it will cost such a minute amount to administer them in the private sector, but of course I accept the Minister's figures. I have made the point many times during consideration of the Bill that Opposition Members are the guardians of taxpayers' money, so if the Minister tells me that new clauses 6 and 7 and amendment No. 22 would mean £75 million in set-up costs, followed by £50 million per annum in running costs, I must of course beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Additional statutory paternity pay:

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 19.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The amendment is to paragraph 20 of schedule 1, which relates to clause 10. I shall speak about the amendment shortly. I am grateful that the clause and the amendment can be discussed together. 
When introducing a provision to allow a father to take an additional period of leave that can be paid if certain criteria are met, there is a requirement to set the rate and period of pay. As with existing provisions for statutory maternity pay, statutory adoption pay and statutory paternity pay, the rate and period will be prescribed in regulations. The clause provides for the regulations to prescribe the rate at which, and the period for which, additional statutory paternity pay is payable. It inserts proposed new section 171ZEE in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. 
Subsection (1) provides for regulations to prescribe the rate at which additional statutory paternity pay is payable. That can be a fixed rate or can be linked to an earnings-related weekly rate. That mirrors current legislation on statutory paternity pay, the rate of which is £106 a week or 90 per cent. of the father's average weekly earnings if that is less than the fixed rate of £106. Maternity allowance and statutory adoption pay are also paid at that rate, as is statutory maternity pay after the first six weeks. No decision has been taken on what the rate will be for additional statutory paternity pay. However, it is likely to mirror the rate of statutory maternity pay, statutory adoption pay and statutory paternity pay at the time of the scheme's introduction. 
Subsections (2) and (3) provide for regulations to specify the period for which additional statutory paternity pay is payable. The period will begin with the day on which the child's mother or the adopter is treated as returning to work, except in exceptional circumstances in which the child's mother or adopter has died. 
Subsection (4) provides for the maximum pay period to be prescribed. The intention is that the period during which the father receives pay will be equivalent to the remainder of the mother's entitlement to statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance, or the adopter's entitlement to adoption pay. Subsection (4) also provides that the period of pay will not extend beyond 12 months from the relevant date, which is the date of the child's birth or the date on which the child was placed for adoption, as set out in subsection (5). That will ensure that the provision for additional paternity leave and pay does not extend beyond the first year of the child's life or the first year following its placement for adoption, which is the policy intention. 
Subsections (6) and (7) ensure that additional statutory paternity pay is payable only for the purpose of caring for the child, and set out that if a person works for part of a week, they will not be paid additional statutory paternity pay except in cases prescribed by the regulations. As with maternity leave and pay, we intend to allow employees to work, if they want to, in certain limited circumstances and for a limited number of days during the additional paternity period without losing pay for that week—for example, to attend special training days—to encourage the employee and employer to keep in touch and to manage the employee's absence from work in a way that benefits both the employee and their employer. 
Subsection (8) provides that, where additional statutory paternity pay has not been paid as a result  of non-compliance with subsection (6) and/or subsection (7), the pay will have ended at the end of the previous week. 
Subsection (9) will enable employers to calculate additional statutory paternity pay at one seventh of the weekly rate in circumstances in which that will help them to align the employee's additional statutory paternity pay within his usual pay period. 
Many employees are paid their contractual pay in periods that are not divisible into an exact number of weeks. Many, for example, are paid per calendar month. Employers have told us that that creates problems, as they have to pay statutory maternity pay, statutory adoption pay and statutory paternity pay in patterns of weeks that do not relate to the employee's usual pay period. 
As well as being unclear for both employees and their employers, we understand that the arrangement leads to an increase in inquiries for employers and often requires them to produce separate payment schedules for employees who receive statutory maternity pay or statutory adoption pay. We have included subsection (9) to prevent the problem from occurring for fathers who take additional statutory paternity pay. 
Subsection (10) clarifies the definition of a week and when a week begins for the purposes of the period of pay. The current definition used in relation to the pay period for statutory maternity pay has meant that the period of seven days begins on a Sunday and runs to a Saturday. We are seeking changes to that definition in respect of statutory maternity pay. We want to ensure consistency with that and with statutory adoption pay by providing that additional statutory paternity pay can begin on any day of the week. That will enable the start of the additional statutory paternity pay and leave periods to be aligned, and it will allow for additional statutory paternity pay to be paid for a specified number of weeks beginning on any day of the week. That will make the additional statutory paternity pay and leave periods more straightforward and understandable for both employers and their employees. 
Amendment No. 19 amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 so that the general definition of a week in the paternity pay provisions, which refer to a week as a period of seven days beginning with a Sunday, does not apply to additional statutory paternity pay. Without the amendment, the additional statutory paternity pay will have to start on a Sunday. The amendment is therefore technical and consequential, so that the provisions on additional statutory paternity pay can achieve their intended effect.

Mark Prisk: I must say that I was most impressed by the Minister's verbal dexterity, and by his colleague's ability to look awake, although I am not sure whether that was merely a front.
I want to touch on the question of keeping in touch, because that is an important point. The Minister may make the cruel assumption that this is rare, but I commend that flexibility. The British Chambers of Commerce made it clear that the opportunity for  employees to be able to return to work, albeit to keep in touch with what is happening, is to be commended. 
I do not intend to refer to the change to the seven-day arrangement, to which Government amendment. No. 19 refers. Again, I understand that that is a technical change, but I want to put on the record my belief that the principle of keeping in touch, and including that option in the legislation, is to be commended.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for those remarks on keeping in touch, which I believe is a key element to the success of the scheme for all concerned. It will give the employer some certainty in their relationship with the employee, and it will give the employee the opportunity to keep in touch with what is going on in the business. That is important particularly because of the fast-changing nature of business and the need for businesses to react to market conditions daily, and sometimes hourly.
I hope that the Committee will support the amendment and the clause. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Leave and pay related to birth or adoption: further amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Meg Munn: It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr. Forth. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend.
The clauses introduces schedule 1 that makes a variety of changes to other legislation. It amends references to statutory paternity leave and pay so that they may be distinguished more clearly from additional paternity leave and additional statutory paternity pay; introduces any-day start day for statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance; allows for a daily calculation of a variety of statutory payments; provides regulation-making powers in respect of keeping-in-touch days; makes consequential amendments to primary legislation dealing with procedures during additional paternity leave; and allows for regulations about additional paternity leave and additional statutory paternity pay to be made under the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 11 also provides for the terms ''statutory paternity pay'' and ''ordinary statutory paternity pay'' to be read as references to the same statutory payment in certain circumstances. 
Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Leave and pay related to birth or adoption: further amendments

Amendment made: No. 19, in schedule 1, page 17, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'subsection' and insert—'(1) Section 171ZJ of SSCBA 1992 (Part 12ZA: supplementary) is amended as follows. In subsection (5), for ''section 171ZE'' substitute ''sections 171ZE and 171ZEE'', and 
(3) In'. 
'(1) Section 171ZJ of SSCBA 1992 (Part 12ZA: supplementary) is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (5), for ''section 171ZE'' substitute ''sections 171ZE and 171ZEE'', and 
(3) In'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mark Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Forth. I know that you share my concern, but I made inquiries this morning about schedule 1 and the Acts that it seeks to change. I asked the Table Office whether copies were available of the Social Security Act 1989, the Finance Act 1989, the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, to which there are significant changes stretching over two and a half pages of the new proposals, the Social Administration Act 1992 and, the fundamental Employment Rights Act 1996, which was available. There are four or five other pieces of legislation that the schedule will amend.
I do not ask for the Committee to be suspended, as that would be inappropriate, but I ask you, Mr. Forth, to ask the Clerks why the principal Acts, which will be amended in the Committee, are not available to enable Members to cross-reference the several pages of changes.

Eric Forth: This issue arose as recently as last week when Mr. Speaker undertook to try to ensure that the appropriate Acts were available. The responsibility is on all members of the Committee to give as much notice as possible of requests to the Vote Office for such documents to be made available.
As a matter of principle, it is more than desirable—it is essential—that Members should have access to the underpinning legislation. In extremis, however, Members can always resort to the Library, where Acts are available and can, if necessary, be photocopied, something to which I resorted last week. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation.

Meg Munn: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in schedule 1, page 20, line 28, leave out 'or'.
This is a minor drafting amendment. If the Bill remains as drafted, the amended wording of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999 will contain the word ''or'' too many times. 
Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

Meg Munn: Schedule 1 makes a variety of changes to other legislation—the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has just drawn the Committee's attention to that fact. It amends references to statutory paternity leave and pay so that they may be distinguished more clearly from additional  paternity leave and additional statutory paternity pay; introduces an any-day start day for statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance; allows for a daily calculation of a variety of statutory payments; provides regulation-making powers in respect of keeping-in-touch days; makes consequential amendments to primary legislation dealing with procedures during additional paternity leave; and allows for regulations about additional paternity leave and additional statutory paternity pay to be made under the affirmative resolution procedure.
Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 - Flexible working

Alan Reid: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 12, page 10, line 9, leave out from 'subsection (1),' to end of line 18 and insert 'delete paragraph (b).'.

Eric Forth: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in clause 12, page 10, line 16, leave out from 'who' to end of line 18 and insert
'is disabled, elderly or has a long-term illness and in respect of whom the employee has caring responsibilities that have a substantial impact on his working life.'. 
No. 9, in clause 12, page 10, line 19, leave out from 'subsection (2),' to end of line 21 and insert ', delete paragraph (d).'.

Alan Reid: Flexible working, an important element introduced in previous legislation, has worked very well and I am pleased that the Bill increases the opportunities available for flexible working.
I tabled the amendments to initiate a debate on the issue, because the principle of flexibility should apply to the Bill itself so that flexible working arrangements should be made more flexible. The Bill, as drafted, puts restrictions on cases where employees would be able to apply for flexible working; they can do so, for example, where there is 
''a child who has not reached the prescribed age''—
that is left to later regulations— 
''or falls within a prescribed description or a person aged 18 or over who falls within a prescribed description and in respect of whom the employee satisfies prescribed conditions as to relationship.''
Rather than trying to prescribe all the circumstances in the Bill or in regulations, it would be better if they were left flexible. In these situations, it is not a guaranteed right to be given the extra leave but to be able to apply for it and for the employer to consider the application. Circumstances may arise that are not foreseen in the Bill or the statutory instruments, so it would therefore be better to leave them open. 
This would not involve a burden on the employer; research on flexible working shows that the great majority of employees—81 per cent.—who made a request had it fully or partly accepted. Employers are showing a willingness to accommodate requests wherever possible. In a CBI survey, 87 per cent. of businesses surveyed reported that the existing law had either had a positive effect or made no impact on their  business. It is important to allow more flexible working. 
Amendment No. 33 attempts to draw a wide definition of the people who are being cared for. Amendment No. 34 was tabled on the advice of the Parkinson's Disease Society, which pointed out that the effects of Parkinson's disease on the sufferer can often vary widely in a short period of time. Present legislation means that the employee has the right to submit only one request for flexible working within a 12-month period, but those who care for people suffering from Parkinson's disease often find that the circumstances can change at short notice. It is therefore important for employees to be able to submit more than one request during the 12-month period should the sufferer's circumstances change. 
I hope that the amendments will prompt a debate on making the circumstances much more flexible.

Eleanor Laing: Clause 12 is very important because we tend to concentrate on mothers of small children when discussing flexible working, although we have been talking about paternity leave today.
It is absolutely vital that in recognising the need for flexible working practices and the need not only for families and individuals but for the economy as a whole to understand and accommodate the work-life balance, we take into consideration the position of carers. Of course, it is more difficult to identify exactly who is a carer and to have a proper definition of carers. By comparison, it is fairly simple to identify the mother, father or guardian of a small child. It is much more difficult to identify someone who has a caring role and ought to be given rights in that respect. 
I repeat that this is not only about improving life for individuals and families; it is an economic imperative that everyone who is capable of working and contributing to our work force be given the chance to do so. It is unacceptable if someone who is perfectly capable of doing a particular job and who might have been doing it to the satisfaction of both employer and employee for many years suddenly can no longer do it because of family responsibilities, such as caring for someone who is ill or for someone who is elderly. 
That situation is not good for anyone. It is not good for the person who needs to be looked after. It is not good for the employee, who is desperately trying to do a job and to fulfil family responsibilities. It is not good for the employer, who, instead of getting loyal service from an employee, suddenly does not get 100 per cent. concentration because the employee is so concerned about other duties in the family. It is not good for business and the economy if people are not enabled to work to the full extent of their capabilities. Most of all, it is a pretty sad situation for someone who would be capable of carrying on a job and carrying out caring responsibilities if flexibility were available. 
For that reason, I disagree with amendment No. 33, proposed by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on behalf of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). Again, this comes down to regulations. In the amendment, there is, quite properly, an attempt to give, in clause 12, in line 16 on page 10, the exact definition of a carer in terms of  the person being cared for. However, later on, in subsection (5), the Government suggest that this is another matter that should be dealt with by regulations. 
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has proposed perfectly reasonable words in amendment No. 33, and it would be preferable to see the regulations before we continue the debate. However, we debated that matter at great length this morning, and I know that it would be improper to return to it now. So far, the Minister has, with forbearance, been polite to me as I have admonished him on the matter, so I will not risk his ire or yours, Mr. Forth. It would have been better had we seen the regulations today, but I hope that at some future point the House will have the opportunity to consider the regulations in a Committee. We reserve the right to consider them very carefully. 
Again, my concern is to make the Bill work. My concern is to allow flexibility and therefore to strike the right balance between employer and employee. But for that to happen, it is also vital to get the right balance between one employee and another. If mothers and fathers of young children are to be given special rights to request flexible working in order to balance their family responsibilities with their workplace responsibilities, so must other employees. If that does not happen, resentment builds up in the work force and people who do not have children will say, ''Why should I always do the late duty just because she has a child?'' or ''Why should I always do the early duty just because he has become a father?'' That makes for bad industrial relations and difficulties for both employees and employers. Getting the definition of a carer right is absolutely vital here. 
There are many views on this issue. Some people would say, ''Sorry, if you have responsibilities outside the workplace and you want to make your first priority the fact that your parent is dying and lives 100 miles away, I do not need you in my work force any more.'' If that attitude prevails, the work force will lose some very good people. That is bad for the economy. We return to the Minister's statistics that she has quoted once and I have quoted a dozen times in the few weeks since she brought forward this information. I said earlier that one can do anything with statistics, but this is rather important. 
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if all the women in the UK work force today were working to the height of their abilities, doing the jobs of which they are capable rather than a part-time version of a lower grade job because they need to leave time for children or other caring responsibilities, it is estimated that annual gross domestic product would benefit by a growth of 3 per cent. That is equal to the whole of our annual trade with Germany. There would be a massive increase in GDP if all the women who could be in the work force were there working to the height of their capacities. 
I say that not because I want to be a slave driver of all the women in the UK, but because I am so well  aware that many women come back to work or continue working not to the extent of their capacities but because they do not have the flexibility. Hence the clause and the amendments to it are key to making the Bill work. Just for once, I do not support what the Liberal Democrats are saying in amendment No. 33. Although it would be better if we could examine the regulations today, I am sure that the Minister will give me an undertaking that we will examine them one day. I reserve the right to come back to this issue when we do. 
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) made an excellent speech on Second Reading on this subject. Unfortunately, she is not a member of the Committee. She gave the example of the white lies that are told by employees in order to be away from the workplace. Everyone knows that they are white lies. The employer knows; colleagues in the workplace know that excuses are made in order to get away for very genuine reasons. It would be far better if the whole matter were honest and above board. If we face the reality that, in the stress of modern living, people have to balance family duties with work duties, that should be recognised on the face of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: I want to make a brief contribution on this part of the Bill. I do not support the amendments but it is useful to have them for the purpose of debate. This is a key part of the Bill, and those amendments aim to define a carer. It is essential to have widespread consultation on the regulations with all the concerned agencies so that we can reach as good a description as possible of what caring involves. All hon. Members know that caring is complex and that it will be difficult to define. It is important that we hold discussions with carers and with the voluntary agencies.
The definition of a carer will be the key to the success of this part of the Bill. I accept, as other hon. Members have said, that the request for flexible working has been a great success. I originally believed that it might require more statutory force, but I accept that it has worked very well. I warmly welcome the Government's extending of that right to carers. 
I have a few questions linked to the amendments that I hope the Minister will address. Like other hon. Members, I have been in touch with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which wants all parents of all children up to the age of 18 to be able to request flexible working. I have some sympathy with that view because, if one looks at the passage of a child's life, one sees that it is always difficult, but the teenage years are probably more problematic than when the children are very little. With a view to consistency, I would like to know the Minister's view on the NSPCC's position. The Equal Opportunities Commission believes that everyone should be able to request flexible working. Does she envisage that we could move to that position in the longer term?

Meg Munn: On a point of order, Mr. Forth. Perhaps I could seek your guidance as I understand that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute referred to amendment No. 34, which does not belong in this  group. However, I am content to respond to his points.

Eric Forth: We will come separately to consideration of amendment No. 34 when we have completed our consideration of this group. That will be the appropriate time for a proper debate on that amendment should the hon. Gentleman wish to initiate it.

Meg Munn: I will respond to the amendments in this group because they deal with the same aspect of the law. I thank Liberal Democrat hon. Members for tabling those amendments to allow discussion on this matter.
In 2003, we created a new right for parents with children under six, and disabled children under 18, to request flexible working. A statutory duty was placed on employers to consider seriously such a request. That right was based on existing business practice, and was introduced in the Employment Act 2002, following a lengthy consultation, including the establishment of a work and parents taskforce to examine how to accommodate the needs of parents in a way that did not compromise business efficiency. 
The law targeted parents with young children, providing support at the key stages of birth and starting school. There was a narrow eligibility criteria that sought to ensure that the legislation would win support from employers. The age limit was set at 18 for parents of disabled children to recognise the distinct and particular difficulties that they often face. 
The Government are seeking to build on the success of the right to request flexible working. Our goal is to support all families to find working hours that match their caring responsibilities—whether for children or for sick or vulnerable adults—in a way that enables businesses to plan effectively and manage their work force. We touched on that matter earlier. This Bill seeks the balance between extending rights for families and recognising the needs of business. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, we do not, at this stage, intend to increase the age for children. We are following a different priority: that of carers. That was the result of our consultation. 
The Government's consultation, ''Work and Families: Choice and Flexibility'' asked how we could achieve our aims. The key issue that emerged from the consultation was that employers had concerns about managing requests from a wider section of the work force. We are especially mindful of the impact of any extension on small businesses. They have stressed to us that their resources to meet an increase in demand are limited. Although the CBI's research shows that small businesses are the most likely to accept requests, it also suggests that employers are finding it more difficult to accommodate requests to work flexibly. The success of the law so far has been due to the widespread support of employers, and we must be careful not to jeopardise that. The law specifies that an employee can apply to work flexibly only if the purpose of their application is to allow them to provide care for another individual. 
The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute would remove those conditions, in effect enabling any employee to apply to their employer to change their working pattern. Although we agree in principle that all employees should have the opportunity to work flexibly, any increase in the scope of the legislation must be made sensibly to ensure that we do not stifle economic growth. We must consider the principles of better regulation. We are keeping a targeted approach to provide employers with the best way of managing requests. We know, on the basis of experience to date, that that is likely to stimulate many to open up flexible working to others in their work force. 
The relevant amendment would define in the Bill which carers were covered by the legislation. Under the existing law, with the reference to parents of children under six, we all immediately understand who is covered by the law. We also have an understanding of the nature of the care that parents provide to their children up to that age. Extending the law to carers of adults raises a number of questions, as it is less easy to understand who will be covered by the legislation and what type of care should be covered. It is important that we clearly define who will be entitled to the new right. 
Through the ''Work and Families'' consultation, we heard that the definition needs to be straightforward, easy to understand and should keep our existing light-touch and targeted approach. We will thereby expect to help those who need it most. We could define in a number of ways which carers are covered by the legislation. One approach would be to link the definition with the level of care that the carer provides. Another approach would be to link it to the person for whom the employee cares. 
Amendment No. 33 would broadly link the definition to the level of care that the carer provides. It states that 
''the employee has caring responsibilities that have a substantial impact on his working life.''
It would be useful to hear the views of different stakeholders on that definition, but I am concerned that the phrase 
''substantial impact on his working life''
is difficult to define objectively and that it might narrow the scope of the rights. Under that definition, some employees might feel excluded, because although they might provide a great deal of care for someone, they might not think that their caring responsibilities were having a sufficiently substantial impact on their working life to warrant a request for flexible working. We need to discuss such issues further. It is right and proper that we should consult widely on the definition of carers and ensure that all those with an interest have an opportunity to air their views. 
I am grateful for the opportunity to have the debate and I look forward to continuing it and involving all interested parties: carers groups—Carers UK has recognised the benefits of the Bill and welcomed it—employee representatives, businesses, both small and large, and, of course, trade unions. We hope to have a full and extensive consultation and we will publish  draft regulations for consultation in the new year. I hope that everyone here will take the opportunity to comment on the consultation. I also hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Alan Reid: The amendments made for an interesting debate, which was the purpose of tabling them. I take heart from the Minister's promise that there will be a full consultation, followed by draft regulations and debates in a statutory instrument Committee. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Eric Forth: That brings us to amendment No. 34.

Alan Reid: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert
'(4A) If an employee described in subsection (2)(b)(ii) has made a successful application under this section, he may make a further application to the same employer for a review of the agreed flexible working arrangements within the twelve month period beginning with the date on which the previous application was made.'. 
I stand corrected, Mr. Forth, and I apologise to the Committee. I thought that this amendment was being dealt with as part of the earlier group, so I spoke to it then. I shall not bore the Committee by repeating my remarks, but a brief summary is that the amendment was prompted by the fact that, under the present legislation, an employee can make only one application for flexible working within a 12-month period. In the case of many illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, the nature of the illness can change rapidly so an employee who is the carer of someone with Parkinson's disease may wish to make a different application within the 12-month period.

Meg Munn: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the amendment would introduce a change in the procedure under which an application to work flexibly can be made. It would apply only to carers. This issue was debated on Second Reading. The amendment seeks to move the debate forward, acknowledging the point made by the Secretary of State that an employer who had been unable to grant an application would be unlikely to take a different view a few months later.
The amendment seeks to allow carers of adults to apply for a review of a successful application within the twelve-month period, while preserving the existing provisions for parents of young and disabled children. We understand that the circumstances faced by many carers are different to that of parents. The condition of sick or disabled individuals can improve or deteriorate over time, and consequently the demands of caring for them change in a way that differs from ordinary child care arrangements. 
We recognise that carers will at times have different needs from parents, but we do not think that it is necessary to legislate for this fact. The procedure that underpins the duty to consider flexible working was designed to encourage dialogue between employers  and employees, so that they are able to discuss working patterns that suit them both. During these discussions, there is already scope for both parties to agree to have a trial period or to agree to review the arrangement at a future point. This fits with the light-touch nature of the law. Research has shown that, in practice, employers and employees often do not use the procedure, even if it applies to their circumstances; about 80 per cent. of requests are dealt with informally. 
The legislation is there as a minimum standard, which gives employees the confidence to ask for that initial discussion. Our approach in encouraging flexible working has consistently balanced the needs of the individual with the needs of business. Employers, especially small employers, need to be able to manage requests and plan ahead with confidence. The law has been a success because it is clear and easy to understand for employers and employees. There is a danger that this amendment would introduce uncertainty around the operation of the law. 
Employers would need to treat parents of young and disabled children differently from carers of adults. This would be confusing for all parties, and add a level of complexity that would not be welcomed. We believe that reviews and trial periods are best covered by guidance. We already cover this in our existing guidance and when we revise the guidance as a result of extending the scope of the law, we will discuss this further with stakeholders to ensure that these types of arrangements are highlighted. 
I fully appreciate why the hon. Gentleman has raised these matters and the views of the Parkinson's Disease Society. Of course, we understand that in these cases situations change fairly quickly and there can be a need to respond in particular ways. We feel that there is the scope within the existing arrangements to manage that.

Alan Reid: I agree that flexible and informal approaches are best, but section 80F(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states:
''If an employee has made an application under this section, he may not make a further application under this section to the same employer before the end of the period of twelve months''.
I am worried that that is such a blanket ban that it seems to conflict with the flexible and informal approach that the Minister described.

Meg Munn: As I said to the hon. Gentleman, we issue guidance to assist employers. He read from the legislation, and we all know that legislation generally, and perhaps this Bill in particular, is not necessarily the most friendly and easy thing to read and immediately understand. Guidance is therefore enormously important. The guidance will cover the issues of looking at trial periods and managing that process. In producing that guidance we are committed to consulting a range of people who are interested, such as carers' organisations. I hope that the Parkinson's Disease Society will comment on it.
We understand the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, but we do not feel that it would be sensible either to include such provisions in legislation or to  make a difference between the request for flexible working by those who have children and by carers in such a way that that difference could be confusing for small businesses. I hope that, with those reassurances, he will withdraw his amendment.

Alan Reid: I am still not convinced, but I realise the hopelessness of pressing the amendment today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Meg Munn: I will be brief because we have already had some discussion on the clause. It is about supporting families who face huge challenges in balancing their home and work responsibilities. However, we also know that businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain the best people in the face of stiff competition and a tight labour market.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest for repeating my statistic. I hope that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was paying attention, as he referred earlier to issues of productivity. I am sure that he will ponder on how we can do better in those areas. 
The legislation that we have so far introduced, which creates the right for parents with children under six or disabled children under 18 to request flexible working has had a positive effect, with very few requests being declined. As I said, the legislation was designed to encourage constructive dialogue between employers and employees, and the success of the law so far demonstrates that that has been a key factor. 
However, the incidence of provision for those with other care responsibilities is less clear. A survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development earlier this year suggested that only 4 per cent. of workplaces provided opportunities for employees to take time off to care for elderly or sick relatives. The clause therefore amends the existing legislation to allow the reason for a request to work flexibly to include caring for an adult. The eligibility criteria for carers will be specified in secondary legislation. 
We are also taking the opportunity to put into regulations the age limit of a child in respect of whom a parent can request to work flexibly, although we do not intend to change the age limit. We are making no changes to the procedural aspects of the legislation. 
I am grateful for the support that the clause received from both sides of the House on Second Reading. It is an important clause, which affords more choice and independence to carers, a group who face particular difficulties in balancing work and caring responsibilities. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Annual leave

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in clause 13, page 10, line 33, after 'year', insert 
'excluding United Kingdom public bank holidays'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, in clause 13, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
'(h) make provision to ensure that where bank holidays are not honoured by an employer each bank holiday day is replaced by another day of paid holiday granted in lieu.'.

Eleanor Laing: Clause 13, to which amendment No. 27 refers, makes Henry VIII clauses look positively weak, because it is so wide ranging. I know that several of my hon. Friends would refer to it as a Henry VIII clause, because it gives so much power to the Government to do almost anything that they want.
The Minister responsible for employment relations looks happy, and I do not blame him. It is the job of a Minister to do what he wants to do to the extent to which he can do it, and I am sure that he does it with the best of intentions. It is, at the same time, the job of the Opposition spokesman to ensure that we know what he is doing and that our constituents, to whom we are all accountable, know what he is doing. 
Although I personally might trust the Ministers who are sitting in the Committee today to be absolutely honourable in all that they do in bringing in further powers by regulation, we do not know what may happen in the future. The Minister with responsibility for women and equality is so pleased at my comments that she is going away, and I do not blame her—that is fine.

Mark Prisk: Does the immediate absence of the Minister not show that we cannot be certain about even these Ministers?

Eleanor Laing: I hope that we can, because these Ministers understand what we are doing. I say to my hon. Friend that we could have far worse Ministers. There could be much better Ministers, such as me and my hon. Friend. It is only a matter of time.
It is our job to hold Ministers to account. Clause 13 introduces so many different regulations, most of which ''may'' do something rather than ''will'' do something. Amendment No. 27, which relates to subsection (1), states: 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision conferring on workers the right, except in prescribed cases, to a prescribed amount of annual leave in each leave year'',
after which I would insert the words 
''excluding United Kingdom public bank holidays''
before the words 
''as defined for the purposes of the regulations.''
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State appeared to make it clear that 
''the Government intended to introduce powers to ensure that the annual leave entitlement for employees did not include the UK's eight bank holidays.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 659.]

Alan Reid: I do not believe that there is a UK bank holiday. There are England and Wales bank holidays, Scotland bank holidays and Northern Ireland bank holidays. I want to make the point to the hon. Lady that the Scottish Executive are responsible for Scotland's bank holidays.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He is absolutely correct. I was quoting from Hansard when I said the ''UK's eight bank holidays.'' He is more accurate, and I shall amend my remarks accordingly.
Clause 13 is complicated. It is about regulations that are here, there and everywhere. However, the House does not always have the power to vary holidays. The Scottish Parliament is looking at the possibility of introducing a St. Andrew's day holiday. Most of us support the plan to introduce such a wonderful celebration of our patron saint. My hon. Friends in the Scottish Parliament would argue that if St. Andrew's day is to become a public holiday, another public holiday should be removed. That is directly relevant to amendment No. 27, because clause 13 is so vague that we hardly know what we are debating. We hardly know on what we can hold the Government to account. 
I want to make two points. The CBI is the voice of business in the United Kingdom, and rightly so. Bearing in mind what I said earlier, whatever laws the Houses of Parliament passes must be made to work in practice outside. As I have said again and again, I want this Bill to work. We must therefore get the balance right. It would be detrimental to employees, employers and business if we gave employees too many rights and too few to employers.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I want to be clear about what the hon. Lady is saying. I understand the point that she makes about the lack of clarity in the clause. However, does she support the principle of people getting more holidays than the 20 days to which they are entitled at present?

Eleanor Laing: That is precisely what I am probing. I am concerned that public holidays may be counted as employees' annual leave. They are public holidays, and, as such, they should be treated as separate. I am also concerned, however, about employees' entitlement suddenly increasing to four weeks' paid holiday. The Bill does not state that; presumably, that will emerge in regulations. It is quite difficult to probe on that matter because the Government have not set out their intentions.

Peter Bone: Reading these regulations, I conclude that they are so vague that it appears that the Government have a right, under this clause, to prescribe the annual leave of every business in the country. They can say that Joe Bloggs must have four weeks' annual leave, not six or two. That is so vague and draconian that it must be revised.

Eleanor Laing: It is vague and it might be draconian. My interpretation is not exactly the same as my hon. Friend's, but he makes a good point. We should not be wondering about the intention of this clause, and there should not be a different understanding between my hon. Friend and myself. Good legislation should be clear. This is not clear because important measures will emerge only in regulations.
The CBI is concerned that these proposals will have a detrimental impact on business if implementation is  not handled in a sensitive manner. Employers generally want their staff to enjoy adequate paid holidays. We are trying to make all employers do what good employers have always done. Good employers get the best out of their staff by treating them well. If they are treated well, employees work better, resulting in more loyalty, job satisfaction and productivity. The CBI is not against the proposal, but it is likely that it would impose a substantial cost on some businesses, and the pace of its introduction will determine whether it has a severe impact on employers or whether that impact can be dealt with. 
If the Government were to introduce, for example, an extra two days each year over the next four years, that may be a more reasonable and gradual way to phase in the entitlement. The Government would achieve their aim, employers would be able to cope with it better, and employees would benefit. Phasing in over time is essential if the legislation is to work without causing a sudden and unbearable impact on many small businesses. That brings us back to the balance between employer and employee. 
Employers are not bad people. They generate wealth and create the jobs that are done by employees. If a small business is affected detrimentally and, therefore, closes, the employees lose their jobs too. No one would then benefit so it is important that, whatever the Government do on this matter, is done sensitively, gradually, carefully, and with consultation. I expect to see many weeks of statutory instruments as a result of clause 13 because it provides for so many regulations. The Minister has already explained the need for further consultation before the regulations are published. I hope that he will listen to employer-representative bodies and others so that the regulations that he will eventually introduce under clause 13 will be workable and will, therefore, benefit everyone.

Mark Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Forth. I am sorry to interrupt the deliberation. The debate so far on the amendment has been reasonably broad and that is to be welcomed. Can you confirm that it is still your intention to have a stand part debate?

Eric Forth: At this stage I am perfectly prepared to have a stand part debate because the hon. Member for Epping Forest has restricted her comments quite properly to her amendment. Clause 13 ranges rather more widely than that.

Alan Reid: I regret that I cannot support amendment No. 27, not least because it includes a phrase for which no definition exists. I understand that the Government are committed through their manifesto to introducing eight extra days of leave, which I presume is what the clause is all about. The clause leaves everything open to regulation. It is difficult to have a debate today because of the way that it has been framed. At least under subsection (6) it will be through the positive procedure and so we will have a chance to debate the matter when it comes to the statutory instrument.
Regarding the public holidays, the hon. Member for Epping Forest referred to a debate in the Scottish Parliament about declaring St. Andrew's day a public holiday. That debate threw up many interesting  positions. There does not seem to be anywhere in the UK a statutory definition of a public holiday. A bank holiday is apparently only a day on which banks may close, not must close. Although I do not support the amendment, I want to urge the Government when they bring forward these regulations to put bank holidays and public holidays on a statutory footing, with the power to set those dates being devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly when it is re-established.

James McGovern: If I understood the hon. Member for Epping Forest correctly, she is trying to achieve the same ends.

Eleanor Laing: Yes.

James McGovern: Raised eyebrows were mentioned earlier. There have been more raised eyebrows than at a Roger Moore convention. The amendment is a gentle reminder to the Government about annual leave entitlement. The amendment adds a new condition to the regulations that are to be drawn up after the Bill is enacted. I should say straight away that I believe that annual leave is vital to the well-being of society in general. It reduces stress by increasing leisure time for people to spend together. It benefits families by allowing parents to spend quality time with their children. It also benefits business by allowing employees to remain fresh and therefore to work more efficiently. As far as I am aware the CBI also agrees, so it is really a question of how the legislation is introduced.
The Government had a manifesto commitment that all employees would be allowed 20 days' annual leave and that this should not include public holidays. I use the term ''public holidays'' advisedly. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and I are the only members of the Committee representing Scottish constituencies. I am sure that other Members will be aware that often on a bank holiday in Scotland the only people who are on holiday are bank employees. I realise that it is different in England. The manifesto commitment to 20 days' annual leave, plus public holidays, was great news for many employees, who felt short changed by the legislation as it had stood since it was introduced via the working time regulations in 1998. 
It is great news for them and I welcome it. I welcome what the Government are trying to achieve here. But I have a concern. The hon. Member for North Norfolk is no longer here. He mentioned this morning that in a previous life he was an employment lawyer. I mean no disrespect to him, but since 1998 employment lawyers have been advising businesses that if they already offered their employees eight days public holidays in a year all they had to do was add another 12 days annual leave to that to comply with the legislation. That worries me. 
Under the clause as it stands, without any additional guarantees, the self-same employment lawyers could advise the self-same businesses that all they had to do now was to work through public holidays and they would still give people only 20 days' annual leave if there was no legal right to public holidays separately from the 20 days. That would  introduce an element of flexibility for those on the minimum annual leave entitlement, but it would make no difference to the number of days' leave offered to them. I realise that many employers give more than the legal minimum. Since the general election in May, I have found myself in the unusual position of being an employer and I certainly give more than the minimum legal requirement.

Charles Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if people are required to work through a public holiday—for example, at Tesco—they should receive a day off in the week in lieu of having worked that holiday? If so, should that be made clear in an amendment to the working time regulations? I think that those regulations prescribe the 12 days plus eight to get to the 20.

James McGovern: Yes, that is what the amendment says. There should be 20 days' annual leave plus the eight for statutory public holidays; they should be additional to the 20 days. As I said, I am an employer and I give more than the legal requirement, but we must legislate to support people who are employed by companies that only ever apply the minimums, and the amendment would enable us to do that. If businesses start working public holidays and that becomes the norm, public holidays as we know them could ultimately become a thing of the past for people employed by those companies.
I think that the hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the CBI regard the provision in the Bill as the introduction of a minimum of 28 days' annual leave. That is how I would like to understand it, but I think that there is a loophole that still allows the matter to be at the discretion of the employer. They may say that they require people to work public holidays. I would like a guarantee set in stone to say that all workers are entitled to a minimum of 20 days' annual leave plus eight days for statutory public holidays.

Charles Walker: How would that work in the retail trade, for example, where firms now tend to work on Boxing day? On many public holidays, they require their people to work, because they are often the days when they sell the most goods to shoppers. How would the hon. Gentleman get around that?

James McGovern: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I agree that public holidays could not always be taken by everyone on the dates for which they are set. I am thinking of the emergency services, hospitals and other caring services. However, the amendment says that if people have to work on such a date, they will receive a day in lieu at another time, mutually agreed between them and the employer. I would like assurances from the Minister, if that is possible, that we will at some stage apply the same minimum annual leave entitlements for all workers and that we will seek to protect public holidays. My amendment would be a way of doing that.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall restrict my remarks to the amendment. As you said, Mr. Forth, we shall consider more detailed issues in the clause stand part debate. Bank holidays were set out in the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, with obligations placed on banks as employers. The hon. Member for Argyll  and Bute and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) say that there are separate arrangements for bank holidays in Scotland, and I take the point that when we get to the regulations, that may be a time to consider these issues in more detail.
Hon. Members have said that these are probing amendments rather than something that they want in the Bill. Amendment No. 27 would give the Secretary of State power to make provision for annual leave except in relation to public and bank holidays. Although many people already benefit from time off in respect of bank holidays in addition to their statutory four weeks' leave, some do not. We want to tackle that unfairness, but we do not propose a statutory entitlement to take the bank holidays as leave. Inevitably, some people will work on a bank holiday, as my hon. Friend said, so we are talking about time equivalent to bank and public holidays. 
As regards amendment No. 16, clause 13 already gives us the power to implement our manifesto commitment, but it would be inappropriate to go into that level of detail before we have carried out consultation with all stakeholders. It is more appropriate to put the detail in the regulations, which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. 
Having considered the issue in great detail, I can say that we should not underestimate its complexity. We promised to gather more data as well as undertaking a full and extensive consultation and we should not prejudge the results of that work. I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest will withdraw her amendment. I shall go into greater detail on the Government's position in the clause stand part debate.

Eleanor Laing: I understand the Minister's explanation. It was the usual explanation as to why the Bill is drafted as it is. However, it is important that we have had an opportunity to consider this aspect of the Bill. It covers an important point, and I am as surprised as the hon. Member for Dundee, West that he and I agree about the result that we want to achieve. However, I want to ensure that the result is balanced, and detrimental neither to business nor to employees. Having considered the matter in detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the clause on stand part: the previous debate, which considered amendments Nos. 27 and 16, rightly highlighted, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, its extraordinary breadth and scope. It is very wide indeed.
Subsection (2) will allow the Secretary of State, in regulations, to make provision for determining the amount of annual leave and the pay in respect of that leave, for enabling a worker to elect when to take that  leave and—I hope to clarify the meaning of subsection (2)(d)—for the payment of compensation in prescribed cases to a worker. They are broad powers. 
On the point about our ability to scrutinise those powers, and the expectations of our constituents as to how effectively we have scrutinised them, our hands are tied. We can only speculate about the content of the regulations. 
Will the Minister answer a couple of questions arising from the debate? How much annual leave do the Government have in mind? How many days do they intend to lay down in law? What assurance will he give that there will be no further changes during this Parliament? We have discussed the problems of constant change, and I hope he can provide some assurance on that. 
Similarly, what will be the basis of the provision of any pay taken during leave taken? Will there be a minimum standard or, instead, a mandatory rule? That is a significant issue. What protection will an employer have over when leave is taken? 
I refer the Committee to subsection (2)(c), which says that the regulations may in particular 
''make provision enabling a worker to elect when to take leave to which he is entitled by virtue of the regulations''.
Having run my own business, I can foresee the danger of four or five people exercising their right under that provision and leaving a business with the difficulty of having the same people on leave in the same weeks. I suspect that you will have anticipated that as well, Mr. Forth. A particular member of staff may be an expert on a particular machine or part of the business, so there will be difficulties with individuals and with groups when they take their right to leave. I hope the Minister can clarify that point. 
Subsection (2) (d) states that the regulations may 
''make provision for the payment of compensation in prescribed cases to a worker who has not taken leave to which he is entitled''.
Will the Minister explain the types of case that the Government expect to prescribe? Will he clarify what the Government mean by ''the payment of compensation''? Are they talking about monetary value or other days in lieu? How will that work? The phrase ''payment of compensation'' suggests monetary compensation, but that may not be so. I hope he can clarify that, too. Those are our questions on the details. 
May I raise a couple of other points? First, the clause seems to drift between employees and workers. As an expert in employment rights, the Minister knows that employees and workers are not the same in law. Will he define who is a worker and who the Government believe are employees? Are they the same thing? 
That leads me to another important but similar point. Members of the Committee will have noted that subsection (2)(g) says that provisions made by regulation should happily fit in with ''any Community obligation''. I am not entirely comfortable with that phrase, not least because, as the Minister knows, the European Union Commission has an entirely different legal attitude to what is a  worker from the Government. Will he say what it means in terms of compatibility with European Union legislation? I would be interested to hear how the two compare. 
Next, on how the provisions will be brought into law, what opportunities will there be for consultation? There is consultation with Members of the House in the form of draft statutory instruments, with enough time being allowed for us to consider them. More important, if I may say so, is the consideration of such instruments by the small businesses themselves and their representatives. What process will be used for the potentially large number of statutory instruments that the provision allows? I would like that to be put on record. Further to that, when can we expect those statutory instruments to be laid? Are any imminent? 
Lastly, I assume from subsection (6) that each and every instrument laid before the House will be considered under the affirmative resolution procedure. The Minister nods. I suspect that some Members may wish that to happen on the Floor of the House. I hope he can clarify that. He is indicating yes from a sedentary position—in the vernacular, a nod—but I hope he will confirm it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope to be able to answer his questions. I ask him the question that I asked the hon. Member for Epping Forest: does the Conservative party support the additional entitlement to 20 days? I want to be clear about that.

Mark Prisk: I am sorry if the Minister did not find the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest clear. It was perfectly clear to me.
I shall draw my remarks to a close, because I know that other hon. Members are keen to move on, although I cannot imagine why they should want another exciting day of deliberation. I suspect that they may not be that keen. I have genuine worries about the clause. We are being asked to give the Secretary of State significant powers without knowing their exact limit. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance that this will be handled sensitively and positively.

Peter Bone: I have great concerns about the breadth of the provisions in clause 6, which seem to give the Government the most enormous power. I am sure that that is not the intention, and that the Minister can address my points.
For instance, the clause sets annual leave, but does not set a minimum. Is it envisaged that every company's total annual leave should be determined by the Government? I am sure that that is not what is intended, but it could result when statutory instruments are made. It worries me that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments could consider many such statutory instruments and that there could be problems with drafting. 
I shall give an example relating to a small business in which the clause might cause a problem. Let us suppose that I employed someone who did not want to take their annual leave in one year, but wanted to take longer the following year. I am not sure that the clause  will allow that to happen: it implies that if someone does not take their annual leave in one year, they will be compensated, but there is no method for carrying that leave forward and having a greater entitlement the following year. 
Another example is that of someone running a small business. In my experience, most small business men do not take much leave, if any. Under the clause, they will almost be required to take it. Will they have to compensate themselves for not taking the annual leave? That is a bit of nonsense and over-regulation. The clause must be drawn a lot tighter before the Bill is enacted.

Charles Walker: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Forth. My recollection of the working time directive regulations is hazy, but I believe that they say that if people want to take their holiday entitlement they have to notify their employer within at least 20 days before that entitlement falls due if they want it to be considered. I hope that those protections will remain in place, especially for small employers, to get round the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford that three out of the five members of the work force of a small business may suddenly decide to go on holiday.
The working time regulations set a minimum 12 days, plus eight days bank holiday, to count towards the 20 days annual leave, but they say that there is no statutory obligation on the employer to compensate people for holiday that they do not take. For example, if a person did not take their full holiday entitlement in 2000, the employer was not obliged to compensate them either in time in 2001 or with cash in lieu. I think, although it is not clear, that the clause relates to the working time regulations. Is the Minister therefore proposing to amend them?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall try to reassure Opposition Members that the clause is not a wide-ranging power to create havoc among employers or employees. It must be viewed within the context of the Government's different approach to employment relations, which includes more consultation and information, and employer and employee working together for the best interests of the business.
It took a Labour Government to introduce the working time directive in 1998. It established for the first time a general statutory right for workers to have paid holidays, benefiting millions of people in the UK. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations taking into account the many flexible and non-standard working patterns that exist. The Department will undertake a full and extensive consultation with stakeholders in line with better regulation principles before detailed changes are put before Parliament. 
Regulations under the clause are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We firmly believe that people should enjoy decent minimum standards at work. The Government have set a clear framework for those rights since 1997, ensuring that protection is balanced with the flexibility that businesses need to succeed.

Mark Prisk: The Minister has just told us that the regulations will take into account existing flexible working arrangements. Is he ruling out a mandatory standard? Does he anticipate introducing a minimum standard, rather than a fixed one?

Gerry Sutcliffe: If the hon. Gentleman will let me go further, I will come to that point and make the proposal clear. If he wants to come back to me, he can.
Subsection (1) will enable the Secretary of State to give workers the right to a prescribed amount of statutory annual leave. The regulations made under this new power will have to comply with the European Community working time directive, but we intend to make provision for leave that is above that required by the directive. 
Subsection (2) details the type of issue that may be addressed in the regulations. For example, they may deal with the amount of annual leave entitlement and make provision for the presentation of a complaint to an employment tribunal and other such matters, which are dealt with under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) hit the nail on the head in terms of what we are trying to achieve with amendments to those regulations. 
The Working Time Regulations 1998 deal with a number of related matters such as the right of a worker not to be subjected to any detriment by reason of exercising his or her right to leave. Subsection (2)(g) will ensure that regulations made under the new power may make comparable provision. Subsection (3) will enable the regulations to define who is to be regarded as a worker and employer. Subsection (4) will ensure that the regulations can be extended to special classes of person, such as those in Crown employment and members of the armed forces. Subsection (6) states that the regulations under the clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and subsection (7) deals with definitions used in the clause. 
In translating our manifesto commitment to extend the entitlement to annual leave, making it additional to time equivalent to bank holidays, we will undertake a full and extensive consultation with stakeholders and provide a more detailed regulatory impact assessment before seeking to exercise the powers. 
I think that hon. Members are making the point that they want to see some of the details. I will try to answer the questions that have been put to me, particularly by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West who is not in his place but will, I am sure, get the message somehow. 
The principle is, as some people work bank holidays, to extend annual leave to 28 days. We are looking at adding eight days to the 20 already provided for in the working time directive. We want to ensure that we honour our manifesto commitment, publicised in our manifesto and subsequent discussions. It will apply where statutory collective bargaining exists and there is already provision for negotiation on hours and holidays. Where there is no statutory collective bargaining, the normal relations  between employer and employee will work out the holiday entitlements in the best interest of the business, subject to the normal agreements. In some circumstances, holidays do not carry forward.

Mark Prisk: In those circumstances where an employee and employer have agreed two weeks leave between them and there is not collective bargaining, do the Government intend to overrule that?

Gerry Sutcliffe: There will be an entitlement that the employee will be able to argue at an employment tribunal if he or she feels that they want to take up their full entitlement. The employee will work out what is in the best interests of their job security. The important point is that the majority of people enjoy 20 days leave plus the bank holidays. That is almost a given for the majority of people. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, the measure is about ensuring that good employers are not prejudiced against because of ''rogue employers'' who are not prepared to offer support to employees.

Charles Walker: As a humble Back Bencher, I am in favour of people having 20 days holiday plus the eight days bank holiday. I think that all companies should provide that. I am aware, however, that some companies give 12 days statutory leave plus the eight days. If they are required to increase that by eight days, it will potentially increase their labour costs by 3 per cent. Bearing in mind what is going on with pensions, where there could be a 3 or 4 per cent. mandatory contribution from small employers, we may be lumbering some employers—they are not all bad, and might just be small—with a double whammy. I hope that the Minister will consider the other legislation in the pipeline when bringing this provision forward.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Certainly. That is the key. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford talked about phasing in the provision. That may be the outcome of the consultation. Hon. Members will notice that there are no detailed costings in the RIA of the impact of the provision. I want to make it clear that we will consider asking the Low Pay Commission to consider the impact of the provision on the employment position, as it does in taking into consideration increases in the minimum wage. Job security and job growth are the most important things, and so I envisage that the regulations will consider using the commission this.
It is a complex issue and that is why the powers are so general. We will go through the affirmative route on regulation, and so further work will be done in the Department on aspects of it, working with the CBI, small businesses and trade unions. They have all generally supported the principle that the hon. Member for Broxbourne has, I hope, committed those on his Front Bench to supporting.

Charles Walker: Only myself.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I hope that that does not land the hon. Gentleman in any trouble.
The regulations will flow from that process. I hope that we will address the issue of ''employee'' or ''worker'' when we respond to the employment status review that has been ongoing for some time,  which we hope to do in the new year. That will clarify the point about who are employees or workers. Further work on the definition will take place.

Mark Prisk: Is the Minister telling us that we have two different sets of people—employees and workers—that are referred to almost as though they are the same? He seemed to imply that he has not quite got those definitions sorted out. Are the terms defined or not?

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is what the consultation and the discussions elaborated on in the employment status review, which has been ongoing for some time. In the very near future, the Government will make a decision about who is classed as an employee and who is classed as a worker. In the consultation and discussion on how we apply the provision, we will take that into account. I am sure that lots of bodies will tell us what they think.

Charles Walker: I remember coming to bore the Minister about the employment status review in my previous life. Since the review was commissioned perhaps three years ago, I was just wondering when we might see the outcome.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The situation has been complex. For instance, we have been looking at the employment status of the clergy and other atypical workers—people who are perceived to be outside the normal employment remit. I hope that we can come to a conclusion in the new year on the status review, which will help the development of the application of this provision. It will go through the same procedure involving 12 weeks' consultation. We are commissioning additional work in the Department of Trade and Industry with stakeholders and others to try to work out what the detailed costs are likely to be and whether that will mean having to bring things in over a period of time. As far as what the commitment will be, the settlement is for the lifetime of the Parliament. We were clear about that in our manifesto commitment on employment matters. However, we may have to extend the implementation period to reach the objective of 28 days.
I hope that that explains our thinking. I can assure hon. Members that they will be heavily involved, if they want to be, in the consultation with a range of stakeholders. We want to meet our manifesto commitment and the clause gives us that opportunity. I hope that Members will support it. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Repeals

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in schedule 2, page 23, line 20, column 2, after '33 (3)', insert ', 48 (2)'.
The amendment corrects a minor drafting omission in the repeals list. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. 
Clauses 16 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Limitation of right to claim unfair dismissal

'In the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (in this Act referred to as ''ERA 1996'') after section 74 insert— 
''Limitation of right to claim unfair dismissal In circumstances where—
(a) an employer employs another person to carry out the duties of a woman taking 52 weeks' maternity leave, and 
(b) that person's contract of employment is terminated in order to permit the return to work of the woman taking 52 weeks' maternity leave, 
that person shall not have the right to claim unfair dismissal.''.'.—[Mr. Reid.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Reid: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would mean that someone who had been employed temporarily to cover for a woman who was off on maternity leave could not claim unfair dismissal even though she had been in the job for a year. 
That has not been an issue until now, because the maximum maternity leave period has been considerably less than a year. Even if a replacement employee were to start work a week or two before the mother went off on maternity leave and there were to be an overlap of a week or two at the end to facilitate a proper handover, the temporary employee would not have been employed for a year. He or she therefore would have no rights to claim unfair dismissal when made redundant at the end of a temporary contract. 
When maternity leave is extended to a year, however, it is likely that temporary employees will be in post for a year, or for a few weeks more than a year. Present employment legislation states that anybody who is dismissed after more than a year in a job has the right to claim unfair dismissal and to take a case to an employment tribunal. That does not appear to be appropriate in cases in which a person has been employed temporarily to cover maternity leave. 
The Government's view may be that redundancy legislation could provide a solution. However, that would also cause problems because, before a worker can be made redundant, there must be, quite rightly, a notice period and a consultation. When the employer proposes to make the temporary employee redundant and holds a consultation, the temporary employee could say, ''My job isn't redundant, because the post still exists, and I am the best-qualified person to do the job among all your employees.'' Therefore the temporary employee has rights. Equally, the woman who has been off on maternity has the right—quite rightly also—to return to work and not to suffer any detriment as a result of having taken maternity leave.

Diana Johnson: I just wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the list of fair reasons that can be used to determine whether a dismissal is fair. Those are set out in statute. Surely the circumstances that we are talking about mean that the employer could fairly dismiss a temporary employee at  the end of the 52-week period without it resulting in an unfair dismissal claim.

Alan Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestion. It is not clear to me whether there would be sufficient grounds for dismissal. We tabled the new clause in order to clarify the situation. We are concerned that two pieces of employment legislation could be in conflict with each other.
A mother is entitled to return to work without any penalty and the temporary employee would have the right to go to an industrial tribunal to claim unfair dismissal. Those two rights are clearly in conflict with each other. The purpose of the new clause is to find out how the Government intend to tackle that problem.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The new clause is intended to give employers who take on maternity leave replacements peace of mind to know that replacement staff cannot claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed when original employees return from maternity leave. We recognise that employers are concerned about their position when they appoint a new employee to cover a woman who is absent on maternity leave. Those concerns were raised on Second Reading, in particular by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride).
An employee with 52-weeks' service is protected from being unfairly dismissed. It is right that those employees are protected, and the Government reduced the qualifying service period from two years to one year in 1999. However, we also recognise that it is right to make the management of maternity leave as straightforward as we can for employers. That includes making their management of employees that they employ to cover maternity leave as straightforward as possible. 
I understand the new clause's intent, and I share the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's clause, but I ask him to withdraw the motion as existing provision already addresses the issue. Section 106 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that, where an employee is taken on to cover an absence that has been caused by pregnancy or childbirth but is dismissed when the original employee returns from the absence, they will be treated as having been dismissed for a substantial reason. That means that the dismissal was not unfair, provided that the employer had acted reasonably. Section 106 is intended to protect employers who take on employees to cover maternity leave. It enables them to dismiss the replacement employee when the original employee returns from maternity leave.

Alan Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. However, as we all know, small employers are often not experts in employment law and, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, I can say that it is very expensive to hire an employment lawyer. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the small employers will be made aware of those rights? Another of my concerns is that such cases could still end up before an industrial tribunal, with all the expense and time that that involves.

Gerry Sutcliffe: As I said earlier, we are trying to give maximum support to small businesses, with the introduction of Employee Direct in the new year, and already through guidance, through support from ACAS, and the Small Business Service, trying to bring to the attention of small businesses the changes in employment law and giving them advice on how to apply it.
We will also introduce an amendment that will include the dismissal of employees taken on to cover absence due to additional paternity leave, which is currently not covered by the clause. I hope that as a consequence of my comments the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Alan Reid: With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - PATERNITY LEAVE ENTITLEMENT

'(1) The ERA 1996 is further amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (3) of section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth) there is inserted at the end ''and that leave may be taken in one period or in separate weeks at any time in the period during which paternity leave may be taken.''. 
(3) In subsection (4) of section 80A, for ''at least 56 days'' substitute ''26 weeks''. 
(4) In subsection (3) of section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption) there is inserted at the end ''and that leave may be taken in one period or in separate weeks at any time in the period during which paternity adoption leave may be taken.''. 
(5) In subsection (4) of section 80B, for ''at least 56 days'' substitute ''26 weeks''. 
(6) In sub-paragraph (a) of section 80E (chapter 3: supplemental) after ''given'', there is inserted ''(except that such notice shall be no longer than 21 days before the expected date of childbirth)''.'. —[Mr. Reid.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Reid: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of new clause 3 is to increase the flexibility of the paternity leave entitlement that exists under current legislation—not any new entitlement that might be introduced as a result of the Bill. Under the current legislation there is an entitlement to two weeks' paternity leave, but there are many restrictions on how those two weeks can be taken. For example, they have to be taken as one block; they cannot be taken as two separate weeks. In the circumstances in which many parents find themselves, it might be better for the father to take one week of the paternity entitlement when the baby is born, for example, and to leave the other week for later, but the current legislation prohibits that. 
Proposed new subsection (2) would allow the leave to be taken either in one period or in separate weeks at any time during the period in which it may be taken and subsection (3) would allow it to be taken during a period of 26 weeks rather than it having to be taken during the first eight weeks. Proposed new subsections (4) and (5) would apply the same regulations to adoption, and subsection (6) would give greater  flexibility for the father to request the paternity leave. Under the current legislation, the father must request the paternity leave more than 21 days before the expected date of the birth, but many fathers are not aware of that and often leave it too late to submit the claim, so the employer can refuse. 
To summarise, the purpose of the new clause is to allow greater flexibility in relation to the existing two weeks of paternity leave.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the introduction of paid paternity leave in 2002 was an historic milestone, recognising that fathers had an important role to play in the upbringing of their new children and in supporting the child's mother.
I turn first to the question of paternity leave, whether for birth or adoptive fathers, being taken in a continuous block. The hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to modify the existing secondary legislation by introducing a new entitlement into the Bill for eligible fathers to take their leave in non-consecutive weeks at any time during the total period within which leave may be taken. 
The existing rules, which require a father to take his paternity leave in a continuous block of either one or two weeks, reflect a sensible balance between the needs of employers and employees. Paternity leave is still a relatively new right. We designed its structure after very careful consultation with business. The requirement for employees to take the leave in one block recognised that employers should be entitled to know that the employee will be away from work for a set period of time, so that they can plan ahead and, if need be, make arrangements for the father's post to be covered in his absence. Were the father to take his leave in two separate blocks, many employers would be obliged to arrange cover twice, which could cause them administrative difficulties. Employees are, of course, always free to discuss with their employers the possibility of taking additional leave, such as annual leave, around that time in order to supplement the paternity leave to which they are entitled, either on top of the paternity leave or some weeks before or after it. 
I turn now to the total period available within which paternity leave may be taken. Again, the 56 days following the birth of the child within which the two weeks may be taken represent a sensible balance between the interests of employees and their employers. The new clause would extend the existing 56 days to six months, a much longer period. Fathers have the right to decide when, within the first eight weeks, their time at home with the new child and the mother is of most value. That provision already gives families great flexibility and employers play their part by standing ready to allow the leave to be taken at a time that suits the father. To extend the period still further would place an unacceptable burden on the employer, who would need to be ready to allow paternity leave to be taken at the time of the father's choosing any time in the first six months of the child's life. 
Finally, I turn to the hon. Gentleman's proposal to determine in regulations a period of notice prior to  taking paternity leave of no longer than 21 days. At present, employees need to provide 15 weeks' notice of their intention to take paternity leave. Employees have an entitlement to leave, and the Government's firm view is that it is only right that employers have the right to receive proper notice of an employee's intentions so that they can plan ahead, provide cover or make alternative arrangements as necessary. 
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from but, given my explanation of the rules governing paternity leave, I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

Alan Reid: I have raised the issue. I realise that there is no point in pressing the proposal to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 - MATERNITY NOTICE PERIOD

'The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 shall be amended so that in regulation 4 (entitlement to ordinary maternity leave) after paragraph (1) insert— 
''(1A) An employee who has notified her employer under paragraph (1) (a) (iii) of the date on which she intends her ordinary maternity leave period to start may subsequently vary that date, provided that she notifies her employer of the variation at least—
(a) 56 days before the date varied, or 
(b) 56 days before the new date, 
whichever is the earlier, or if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as is reasonably practicable.''.'.—[Mrs. Laing.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Entitlement to additional maternity leave—
'The Maternity and Paternal Leave etc. Regulations 1999 are amended as follows— 
(1) In regulation 4 (entitlement to ordinary maternity leave) in paragraph (1) after ''ordinary'' insert, ''and additional''. 
(2) Omit regulation 5 (entitlement to additional maternity leave).'. 
New clause 8—Contact between employer and employee— 
'(1) An employer may make reasonable contact with an employee during maternity leave. 
(2) The Secretary of State shall give guidance to define ''reasonable contact'' as set out under subsection (1).'.

Eleanor Laing: The three new clauses are important. I envisage that it might take two or three hours for us to consider them, but I shall endeavour to stick to them precisely and proceed with appropriate haste. As ever, I have suggested the new clauses because I want the Bill to work. It must be reasonable. We do not want the good intentions behind the Bill, and some of the many good measures within it, to backfire. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that more women are in employment today than ever before, so de facto what the Government have done in the past eight years could not possibly have had anything to do with previous Governments. [Hon. Members: ''No.''] That was meant with irony. Over the past 30 years, successive Governments have clearly  supported changes to employment law that have helped flexibility and ensured that more women are in the workplace.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am not going to say that everything that happened under previous Governments was not heading towards some improvement. [Interruption.] Okay. At the risk of upsetting my colleague, I withdraw that remark. However, if that were the case, why did the then Conservative Government not introduce the social chapter and the working time directive?

Eleanor Laing: It is not for me to answer that.

Ian Stewart: Oh yes it is.

Eleanor Laing: No, it would be found to be wide of the mark on the three new clauses if I were to go into that. I could go into such matters, but I shall not do so. The last Conservative Government did very much for the economy of our country. Hon. Gentlemen keep harking back to 1997 like it was the beginning of time, but they have forgotten 1979 when the country was—

Eric Forth: Order. The hon. Lady must not be seduced by the Minister, even at this early hour in our deliberations. I ask all hon. Members to stick to the very straight and narrow.

Eleanor Laing: Of course I will, Mr. Forth. That is why I cannot go into the sort of lengthy explanation that Government Members are encouraging me to give. Besides, it is not necessary; the facts speak for themselves. The previous Government left the country in a far stronger economic state, which is what caused employment to soar instead of causing the country to continue downhill, as it would have done. However, that is not the point.

Eric Forth: Correct.

Eleanor Laing: The point is the need to find a balance. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that more women are in employment than ever before, but as I have illustrated with the statistic that I call the Minister's statistic—the one about 3 per cent. of GDP in Germany—the women are not in the best jobs.
We keep asking about the glass ceiling and why more women are not at the top of this or that profession. The answer is that the balance is often wrong. I do not, however, want employers to be discouraged from employing women because they believe that they will have to comply with much more rigid employment rules if they employ them. That would be quite wrong. 
New clause 4 would encourage a woman to tell her employer precisely when she intends to take maternity leave. Before anyone rightly jumps up if I do not explain that immediately, the important phrase after 
''An employee who has notified her employer under paragraph (1)(a)(iii) of the date on which she intends her ordinary maternity leave period to start may subsequently vary that date, provided that she notifies her employer of the variation at least . . . 56 days before the date varied, or . . . 56 days before the new date, whichever is the earlier'',
is 
''if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as is reasonably practicable.''
Giving birth to children is not an exact science, and it is not always possible for someone to predict precisely when she will need to take maternity leave. I personally got the date wrong by 35 days when my son arrived precisely one week after the 2001 general election, instead of six weeks after it, which would have been much more convenient. Had I tried to make any plans, I would have got them totally wrong. 
The point is that if notifying the employer of a variation of the date is not reasonably practicable, it should be given as soon as is reasonably practicable. The new clause would encourage best practice in this respect. After all, when someone takes maternity leave, she will probably be replaced by a replacement employee or other people filling in to do the work that is to be done during the term of the maternity leave, and it is only fair, to the replacement employee as well as to the employer, if the period during which it will be necessary for maternity leave to be taken is determined as precisely as possible as far in advance as possible. 
Likewise, new clause 5 would continue that flexibility, and that is the point. Increasing the length of notice required to return early will help employers with planning and communication, and they will be able to manage better their use of temporary employees who are covering maternity leave if they are given more notice, which is only fair to those employees. If new clause 5 is added to that, mothers would still have the right to return to the same or similar job under no less favourable pay and conditions, but the employer will have more notice. 
As far as new clause 8 is concerned, the Minister addressed the matter earlier in our deliberations. The employer and employee might not keep in touch during maternity leave because, mistakenly, they have thought that it is not right to communicate. They might feel that it somehow affects the rights of either the employee or the employer and the working of maternity leave if they keep in touch. Of course, it is far more practical to keep in touch and, if the employee wishes to come back to work, to discuss how she might slot back in once she returns. That is perfectly reasonable. I do not have to address that point further because we have already addressed it, and the Minister has given good explanations as to why it is not necessary to include further measures in the Bill in that respect. 
Once again, through the new clauses, I am trying to achieve as much flexibility as possible and the best balance possible between employer and employee and, indeed, between an employee who benefits under the Bill and other employees who are tangentially affected by it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The three new clauses cover three points: the notice women must give in connection with maternity leave; the extension of entitlement to additional maternity leave; and clarification of the contact employers may make with women on maternity leave. 
New clause 4 seeks to amend the secondary legislation that sets out the detail of the maternity leave rules. Looking at the detail of the new clause, I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Epping Forest explain why she is seeking to increase the amount of notice that women must give of their intention to begin maternity leave. Employers have particular concerns about managing women's return from maternity leave. The messages we consistently hear from employers are that they are uncertain when an employee will be returning from maternity leave and that, when a woman changes her mind and returns early, the current 28 days' notice does not give them sufficient opportunity to make the necessary arrangements. This may include having to give notice to a temporary employee taken on to cover the maternity leave absence or internally rearranging work loads. 
We have listened to those concerns and made a commitment to increase from 28 days to eight weeks the amount of notice that a woman must give if she changes her mind about return from maternity leave. That change will be made in affirmative secondary legislation, which we shall consult on when amending regulations in the new year. The change recognises the concerns of employers about women changing their plans to return from maternity leave. The same concerns do not apply to notice of the start date. We have seen no evidence that the existing notice provisions present any problems for employers, and it did not come up as an issue in our consultation. 
The hon. Lady may recall that new maternity leave notice arrangements were introduced for women whose babies were due from April 2003 onwards. Prior to 2003, a woman needed only to give her employer 21 days' notice of her planned maternity leave start date. To give employers greater certainty, we introduced the requirement that a woman must tell her employer in the 15th week before her baby is due when she expects to begin her maternity leave. If her plans change, a woman must give 28 days' notice of the change. 
We believe that this represents a realistic balance between the needs of women and their employers at this time. We need to recognise that the reasons a woman has for changing the start of her maternity leave will be different to her reasons for changing her return date. Some women could notify employers of a late start date and then find, perhaps because of tiredness, that they are unable to continue to work up to their planned start date. It is important that women in those situations are able to have some flexibility in changing their start date. I do not believe that the increased notice period set out in the amendment would give that flexibility. 
Employers also benefit from some flexibility. Looking at the example I have given, a woman who finds that she is unable to work up to her planned maternity leave start date due to the normal toll that pregnancy places on her might feel forced to take sick leave if she is unable to change her maternity leave plans. That situation would not benefit either the employer or the woman herself. I believe that the current position offers the right balance of flexibility  for women and their employees in respect of the start of maternity leave, but as I have said, we remain committed to increasing the notice if a woman wishes to change her return date. 
New clause 5 would amend the secondary legislation that sets out the detail of the maternity leave rules. It is the Government's intention to make amendments to the maternity and parental leave regulations, which will achieve the same effect as the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I welcome her support for the changes we have committed to make. 
The effect of the new clause would be to remove the qualifying service for additional maternity leave. All women who satisfy the relevant eligibility criteria for ordinary maternity leave would also qualify for additional maternity leave. Hon. Members will be aware that that was one of the changes considered during the ''Work and Families'' consultation. Our aim was to ensure that all employed women would be able to benefit from the extension in maternity pay. 
If the current rules on eligibility for additional maternity leave were retained, some women would be entitled to 39 weeks statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance, but there would be only 26 weeks maternity leave. Amending the eligibility criteria so that all employed women are able to take additional maternity leave means that all women will be able to choose to receive statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance for the full payment period. From April 2007, it will be 39 weeks. We are committed to making the change to the eligibility criteria, and we will bring forward amending regulations next year. 
New clause 8 seeks to provide that an employer may make reasonable contact with the employee during the maternity leave. As the hon. Lady said, we have already announced that we intend to amend the law to make it clear that employers may make reasonable contact with employees during maternity leave. Again, I am pleased that she supports what we are trying to achieve. 
With those explanations, I hope that the hon. Lady, having raised the issues for discussion, accepts—no, not the error of her ways—that the Government are meeting the requirements that she sets out in the new clauses and therefore that they are not necessary. I therefore ask her to withdraw the motion.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's explanation. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to put our concerns on record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, that the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank you, Mr. Forth, for your excellent chairmanship; it has allowed us to complete our consideration of the Bill yet give due care and attention to the issues that have been raised. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Bayley.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for women and equality for her  assistance in dealing with large parts of the Bill. I am also grateful to hon. Members on both sides for their support and their participation. I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest; she challenged the Government when necessary. I also thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and others on the Opposition Benches. 
I am delighted that my hon. Friends listened with such great care to what the Government said, and that they support what we are trying to achieve. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for being ahead of her time, as we said earlier; I am sure that she will return to the subject in due course. 
I thank the Clerks, the attendants, the police and Hansard for the work that they do in keeping our Committee going. I thank the staff of all Departments concerned in the work of the Committee. 
I am pleased that our debates were so constructive and positive, and I hope for a similar standard of debate on Report if we are lucky. It is an important Bill, as outlined by all who contributed to our debates. I am happy that we have given it due care and attention. I look forward to the further stages and processes that it has to go through before reaching the statute book. It will ensure that we get the balance right for working families.

Eleanor Laing: I reciprocate by thanking both of the Ministers for the courteous and thorough way in which they have dealt with our probing of the Bill. We have not amended it to any great extent, but I am pleased that the Minister has taken on board many of the issues that we have raised. When we come to the rafts of regulations that will be introduced consequentially, we will be able to revisit some of the matters raised today.
May I, through the Minister, thank the many officials who have worked on the Bill, and the Officers of the House who have kept the Committee going? I also thank my hon. Friends and other members of the Committee for the constructive way in which we have  conducted today's debate. Most of all, Mr. Forth, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I thank you and Mr. Bayley for your patience and forbearance and for the quick but thorough way in which you have ensured that we have debated the Bill. There is nothing that we have not debated, and we have completed our deliberations efficiently. 
Last week, when, my little son, who is four and a half, asked me what I was going to speak about, I said, ''I'm going to discuss new rules about how mummies can spend more time with their children,'' to which he said, ''Great; so you can come home and read me my story then.'' Thanks to the efficient way in which we have covered all the issues in the Bill today, it looks as though I will, most unusually, be able to do that this evening.

Alan Reid: I congratulate you, Mr. Forth, and Mr. Bayley on guiding us speedily through our deliberations. We have, as you said, finished at an early hour. I also congratulate the Ministers on getting us through the Bill speedily, and all the staff without whom we could not conduct our deliberations. That the Bill has gone through so speedily is partly a reflection of the fact that it has all-party support. There may be differences in emphasis, but there is a general consensus.
Another reason why the Bill has gone through so speedily is because an awful lot of it is dependent on regulations, which we have not had the chance to scrutinise yet. I look forward to taking up the debate on Report and to scrutinising the regulations.

Eric Forth: Before I put the final question, I echo all the sentiments expressed by the Minister and hon. Members. My thanks and those of my co-Chairman go particularly, as ever, to the Clerks, whose expertise and patience keep us on the straight and narrow.
Question put and agreed to. 
Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at eighteen minutes to Seven o'clock.